Why are so many evangelicals conservative politically?

[Danmark]

"White evangelical Protestants are roughly five times more likely to agree with the Tea Party movement than to disagree with it...."
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/02/2 ... filiation/
http://www.pewforum.org/2011/02/23/tea- ... -religion/

Why?
Why should a religion based on the teachings of Jesus Christ be so conservative politically and economically? Why should the 'soldiers of Christ' be so pro big business and be lackey's for the 1% of Americans that own 40 or 50% of the Country's wealth? Why are they so hostile to social programs designed to help the poor and provide basic health coverage?

[WinePusher]

Drunks, cowards, lazy and panicky people are typically conservative. See how that works?

Here's how a liberal might phrase it: Some conservatives are not lazy, deluded morons.

Yes, please provide links to the academic studies that make these claims. Going off of everything you've written so far, these studies aren't very serious and are probably on some obscure liberal blog (which is why you're afraid to post the links) or you just made all this nonsense up. Please prove me wrong and provide the links.

There is a semi-large literature on this subject and the two premier books that outline and explain this issue are Moral Politics by George Lakoff and A Conflict of Visions by Thomas Sowell. Both of these two books assert that the fundamental belief that determines a person's political/religious affiliations is their view on human nature and morality. The two dichotomies of this are: a view that human behavior and society can be perfected and transformed into a type of utopia on earth while the other view is that humans and society are fundamentally flawed, nirvana is unachievable in this life and humanity can never be perfected. The first view favors centralization, regulation, exogenous third party intervention while the second view favors decentralization, personal responsibility and decision making and little to no government regulation and intervention. Both liberals and conservatives wade in between these two views. Liberals tend to support government intervention, centralization of power and regulation when it comes to economic matters but not when it comes to social matters. To the contrary, conservatives support no intervention in the economy while also supporting massive government intervention at the social and personal level.

In other words, liberals believe people should be free to act without fear of government intervention when it comes to social issues (like drugs, abortion, sex, etc) while conservatives favor regulating and prohibiting things like drugs, abortion and sex. Liberals support social freedom while conservatives support economic freedom while conservatives are opposed to social freedom and liberals are opposed to economic freedom. There is nothing in human nature that requires this, there is no natural law that prescribes how and why liberals and conservatives believe certain things. It is merely a product of social evolution and the beliefs that conservatives and liberals hold vary throughout the world pending on the countries history. Your post really has no merit to it. It's just a string of inflammatory, outrageous, unintelligible caricatures.

For those who are actually interested in this subject, I would suggest reading both Sowell and Lakoff along with books by Charles Murray, Bryan Caplan and Stephen Pinker.

[Gracchus]

[Replying to post 358 by WinePusher]"Both of these two books assert that the fundamental belief that determines a person's political/religious affiliations is their view on human nature and morality. "
That's like saying measles is caused by red spots on the skin. The world view is determined by the configuration of the brain, and that configuration is partly learned and partly inherited.
I will not provide citations. If you really want to learn, you will track down the literature yourself. If I just give it to you, you will have invested nothing and it will have no value to you, and so you will deny it without really consdering it.

Or provide your own answer to the question. We can address the issues point by point. Then I will be more than happy to cite the literature. You show me that you are willing to do some work, and I will be more than happy to work with you.

[WinePusher]

Both of these two books assert that the fundamental belief that determines a person's political/religious affiliations is their view on human nature and morality.

That's like saying measles is caused by red spots on the skin.

?

The world view is determined by the configuration of the brain, and that configuration is partly learned and partly inherited.

The 'worldview?' A person's worldview encompasses their personal opinions, beliefs, convictions, etc. There is nothing about a person's world that is inherited. On the otherhand, a person's intelligence is determined through a mixture of genetic and environmental factors.

I will not provide citations.

Then don't expect to ever be taken seriously on this forum.

If you really want to learn, you will track down the literature yourself. If I just give it to you, you will have invested nothing and it will have no value to you, and so you will deny it without really consdering it.

Are you kidding? Did you not read anything I wrote? Apparently I have a better grasp of the literature than you or most other participants in this thread. You seem to be totally unfamiliar with the two premier works relating to this subject, and your so called 'explanation' for why evangelicals are conservatives was an inflammatory caricature with no merit whatsoever. I tried explaning the arguments and theories to you concerning this topic, and you ignored it.

Or provide your own answer to the question. We can address the issues point by point. Then I will be more than happy to cite the literature.

I already did. You just chose to ignore it.

You show me that you are willing to do some work, and I will be more than happy to work with you.

When you post flamebait, and when you refuse to cite your sources, you won't have any credibility and you're not going to be taken seriously.

[Danmark]

Drunks, cowards, lazy and panicky people are typically conservative. See how that works?

Here's how a liberal might phrase it: Some conservatives are not lazy, deluded morons.

Yes, please provide links to the academic studies that make these claims. Going off of everything you've written so far, these studies aren't very serious and are probably on some obscure liberal blog (which is why you're afraid to post the links) or you just made all this nonsense up. Please prove me wrong and provide the links.

There is a semi-large literature on this subject and the two premier books that outline and explain this issue are Moral Politics by George Lakoff and A Conflict of Visions by Thomas Sowell. Both of these two books assert that the fundamental belief that determines a person's political/religious affiliations is their view on human nature and morality. The two dichotomies of this are: a view that human behavior and society can be perfected and transformed into a type of utopia on earth while the other view is that humans and society are fundamentally flawed, nirvana is unachievable in this life and humanity can never be perfected. The first view favors centralization, regulation, exogenous third party intervention while the second view favors decentralization, personal responsibility and decision making and little to no government regulation and intervention. Both liberals and conservatives wade in between these two views. Liberals tend to support government intervention, centralization of power and regulation when it comes to economic matters but not when it comes to social matters. To the contrary, conservatives support no intervention in the economy while also supporting massive government intervention at the social and personal level.

In other words, liberals believe people should be free to act without fear of government intervention when it comes to social issues (like drugs, abortion, sex, etc) while conservatives favor regulating and prohibiting things like drugs, abortion and sex. Liberals support social freedom while conservatives support economic freedom while conservatives are opposed to social freedom and liberals are opposed to economic freedom. There is nothing in human nature that requires this, there is no natural law that prescribes how and why liberals and conservatives believe certain things. It is merely a product of social evolution and the beliefs that conservatives and liberals hold vary throughout the world pending on the countries history. Your post really has no merit to it. It's just a string of inflammatory, outrageous, unintelligible caricatures.

For those who are actually interested in this subject, I would suggest reading both Sowell and Lakoff along with books by Charles Murray, Bryan Caplan and Stephen Pinker.

And I'd suggest Mooney and more importantly the research he relied on for The Republican Brain, as well as a lot of other links to research previously published on this subforum. These are only generalizations of course.

And I must object to Gracchus's inclusion of 'Drunks' in his list of conservative characteristics. As a drunk myself, I take exception. I also must point out the correlation between intelligence and alcohol consumption.
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/1158 ... orrelation

There are a lot of theories about why this is, but they don't make a lot of sense to me. It's obvious that intelligent people feel a need to drink to overcome the shock of the things conservatives come up with. I only have anecdotal evidence to support this, but it comes from GREAT anecdotes.

Oh! and as a lazy person, I also object to that remark, G. Laziness also has a strong correlation with intelligence..., but . . . I'm just not inclined to look it up right now.

[Gracchus]

Both of these two books assert that the fundamental belief that determines a person's political/religious affiliations is their view on human nature and morality.

That's like saying measles is caused by red spots on the skin.

The books you cited do indeed make the points that liberals and conservatives see the world differently.
And indeed, it would seem they only make the points I put forth in different language. But the reasons that liberals and conservatives see things differently are rooted in the functional differences in their brains. There has been a lot of neuroscience done in this area since these books were first published and even since they were revised.

?

A world view is determined by the electrochemistry and genetic configuration of the brain. For instance if you are tone-deaf you can't really hear music. If you are color-blind you can't really appreciate a rainbow. And if you are a conservative, you can't really understand nuance, you can't see that every good thing brings its own evil. My own guess is that this may be an epigenetic effect. You quoted to the effect that a conservative is a liberal who has been mugged. And there is much truth in that. And many conservatives were mugged when they were so young they don't even remember it. I suspect, in fact, that all conservatives were mugged and it left them permanently impaired. In fact since there is evidence that epigenetic effects may be inherited, it may even be their parents who got mugged.

The world view is determined by the configuration of the brain, and that configuration is partly learned and partly inherited.

The 'worldview?' A person's worldview encompasses their personal opinions, beliefs, convictions, etc. There is nothing about a person's world that is inherited. On the otherhand, a person's intelligence is determined through a mixture of genetic and environmental factors.

Whether a person is liberal or conservative is not a matter of intelligence. Conservatives operate out of the amygdala. They decide and only then rationalize their decisions. Thus, they decide things quickly, which is a plus. But their conscious minds enter only after the decision has been made. Liberals sometimes allow their anterior cingulate cortex into the loop and so occasionally change the decision before they complete the act. And again, sometimes liberals don't seem to be able to make a decision at all. It has been said that conservatives can never admit to losing an argument, and liberals make a habit of losing arguments with themselves.

I will not provide citations.

Then don't expect to ever be taken seriously on this forum.

Oh come on! You will never take seriously anyone who disagrees with you. Let us go to your two cited books, although Lakoff seems to be a derived work, which is to say, not founded in neurobiology. Bring up point by point where they disagree with me. At that point I will provide pertinent citations. I am not going to list three or four pages of citations, unless it is really necessary. People get paid for that kind of work.
I haven't read either book, but a quick perusal of the tables of contents shows no hint that they concern themselves at all with neuroscience. They compare ideas but do not address the questions of why people have ideas.

If you really want to learn, you will track down the literature yourself. If I just give it to you, you will have invested nothing and it will have no value to you, and so you will deny it without really consdering it.

Are you kidding? Did you not read anything I wrote? Apparently I have a better grasp of the literature than you or most other participants in this thread. You seem to be totally unfamiliar with the two premier works relating to this subject, and your so called 'explanation' for why evangelicals are conservatives was an inflammatory caricature with no merit whatsoever. I tried explaning the arguments and theories to you concerning this topic, and you ignored it.

You've read two books. I am impressed. You probably do have a better grasp of the literature than most of the participants on this thread. You should not, however, be certain that you have a better grasp than everyone. (See: "On Being Certain: Believing You Are Right Even When You're Not" by Robert Burton (Mar 17, 2009))

I will offer citations, but I would suggest first that you sit through Robert Sapolsky's lectures on the Biology of Human Behavior, given at Stanford University. They are available on line for free.
Or we could just have you bring up how Lakoff and Sowell disagree with me and we could go from there. But again, from the reviews and a quick scan of the contents, it does not appear that either book addresses the neurological differences between liberals and conservatives. Charles Murray is a “Political Scientist�. I give those folks as much credence as I do “Theologians�. Pinker I may get around to reading. (So many books, so little time!) Thanks for pointing him out.

Or provide your own answer to the question. We can address the issues point by point. Then I will be more than happy to cite the literature.

I already did. You just chose to ignore it.

What you provided was unsupported opinion. We can agree, I think, that liberals and conservatives think differently. But I maintain that this difference arises from neurobiology.

You show me that you are willing to do some work, and I will be more than happy to work with you.

When you post flamebait, and when you refuse to cite your sources, you won't have any credibility and you're not going to be taken seriously.

There is evolutionary value in snap judgements, when they are backed by lots of experience. By the time many liberals can make a decision, it is often too late. What is true may offend you but to dismiss it as “flamebait" is just a conservative's way of dealing with what you don't want to hear.
I will repeat: Conservatives tend to make their decisions first and then rationalize them. That is why they tend toward the simplified reasoning and denial of nuance and moral complexity that is "evangelism".
How do I know that you are a conservative? Because when you became angry with me, you accused me of being a liberal. Actually, I am a radical.

[WinePusher]

The books you cited do indeed make the points that liberals and conservatives see the world differently.
And indeed, it would seem they only make the points I put forth in different language. But the reasons that liberals and conservatives see things differently are rooted in the functional differences in their brains. There has been a lot of neuroscience done in this area since these books were first published and even since they were revised.

It seems like we're completely talking past eachother. The question that I am trying to answer is why do most christians hold conservative beliefs and why do most conservatives hold christian beliefs. And on the flip side, why do liberals tend to be non religious and why do nonbelievers tend to be liberals. None of this can be explained using the type of pop psychology you're bringing up. You seem to be talking about behavorial differences between conservatives and liberals, ie: at a party a conservative person would generally be sulking in a corner talking to only one person while a liberal person would be up on a table drinking and dancing. This isn't relevant to the topic though.

A world view is determined by the electrochemistry and genetic configuration of the brain. For instance if you are tone-deaf you can't really hear music. If you are color-blind you can't really appreciate a rainbow. And if you are a conservative, you can't really understand nuance, you can't see that every good thing brings its own evil. My own guess is that this may be an epigenetic effect. You quoted to the effect that a conservative is a liberal who has been mugged. And there is much truth in that. And many conservatives were mugged when they were so young they don't even remember it. I suspect, in fact, that all conservatives were mugged and it left them permanently impaired. In fact since there is evidence that epigenetic effects may be inherited, it may even be their parents who got mugged.

First of all, I never said that. Second of all, liberalism and conservativism are ideological worldviews. Have you ever noticed that people can volutnarily change their views from liberal to conservative, or from conservative to liberal? Can tone deaf people and color blind people voluntarily chose to stop being tone deaf and color blind? Like I said, you're presenting arguments and ideas that are not reelated to the topic.

The 'worldview?' A person's worldview encompasses their personal opinions, beliefs, convictions, etc. There is nothing about a person's world that is inherited. On the otherhand, a person's intelligence is determined through a mixture of genetic and environmental factors.

Whether a person is liberal or conservative is not a matter of intelligence. Conservatives operate out of the amygdala. They decide and only then rationalize their decisions. Thus, they decide things quickly, which is a plus. But their conscious minds enter only after the decision has been made. Liberals sometimes allow their anterior cingulate cortex into the loop and so occasionally change the decision before they complete the act. And again, sometimes liberals don't seem to be able to make a decision at all. It has been said that conservatives can never admit to losing an argument, and liberals make a habit of losing arguments with themselves.

Yes, we're talking past eachother. I am not trying to explain the psychological and behavorial differences between conservatives and liberals. I am trying to explain why conservatives and liberals believe the things they do. Why are the majority of conservatives christian? Why are many liberals atheists? Etc. Nothing you've written so far even comes close to explaining this anomaly.

Oh come on! You will never take seriously anyone who disagrees with you. Let us go to your two cited books, although Lakoff seems to be a derived work, which is to say, not founded in neurobiology. Bring up point by point where they disagree with me. At that point I will provide pertinent citations. I am not going to list three or four pages of citations, unless it is really necessary. People get paid for that kind of work.
I haven't read either book, but a quick perusal of the tables of contents shows no hint that they concern themselves at all with neuroscience. They compare ideas but do not address the questions of why people have ideas.

None of the books, other than Stephen Pinker perhaps, is rooted in neurobiology. Additionally, Stephen Pinker completely endorses Thomas Sowell's book which is the explanation I subscribe to. The books and authors I cite are not approaching this issue from a neurobiological standpoint like you are. They are using political, sociological and economic analysis to explain the origin and causation of opinions and beliefs.

I will offer citations, but I would suggest first that you sit through Robert Sapolsky's lectures on the Biology of Human Behavior, given at Stanford University. They are available on line for free.
Or we could just have you bring up how Lakoff and Sowell disagree with me and we could go from there. But again, from the reviews and a quick scan of the contents, it does not appear that either book addresses the neurological differences between liberals and conservatives. Charles Murray is a “Political Scientist�. I give those folks as much credence as I do “Theologians�. Pinker I may get around to reading. (So many books, so little time!) Thanks for pointing him out.

I have no interest in neurobiology, and now that I know where you're coming from I have no interest in seeing you're sources. Like I said, we're not on the same page. We're talking past eachother. You bringing up irrelevant issues regarding neurobiology and psychology while I'm bringing up politics, economics, and sociology to address the topic.

I will repeat: Conservatives tend to make their decisions first and then rationalize them.

How does this explain why conservatives are fundamentalist christians, pro life, against gay marriage, pro economic freedom, opposed to drugs, etc. Sorry, but everything you're writing so far is irrelevant.

How do I know that you are a conservative? Because when you became angry with me, you accused me of being a liberal. Actually, I am a radical.

First, I never got angry at you. I don't get angry at random people over the internet. Second, I never accused you of being a liberal. Third, I consider myself a radical (someone who looks to the root of the problem) in many ways as well.

[WinePusher]

And I'd suggest Mooney and more importantly the research he relied on for The Republican Brain, as well as a lot of other links to research previously published on this subforum. These are only generalizations of course.

I was only presenting books by serious, legitimate, qualified authors. From what I've read, Chris Mooney is not serious, legitimate or qualified. To the contrary, he doesn't seem to have a doctorate, he is a liberal polemic and he does not do original academic research like Sowell, Lakoff, Murray, Caplan and Pinker do. Chris Mooney is the equivalent of an Ann Coulter or a Laura Ingraham. But hey, at least Coulter and Ingraham have law degrees. Let me recommend one more book in light of Danmark's suggestion:

Demonic: How the Liberal Mob is Endangering America, Ann Coulter

[Gracchus]

The books you cited do indeed make the points that liberals and conservatives see the world differently.
And indeed, it would seem they only make the points I put forth in different language. But the reasons that liberals and conservatives see things differently are rooted in the functional differences in their brains. There has been a lot of neuroscience done in this area since these books were first published and even since they were revised.

It seems like we're completely talking past eachother. The question that I am trying to answer is why do most christians hold conservative beliefs and why do most conservatives hold christian beliefs. And on the flip side, why do liberals tend to be non religious and why do nonbelievers tend to be liberals. None of this can be explained using the type of pop psychology you're bringing up.

Consider the analogous question: Why do so many feverish people have a cough, and why do so many people with a cough have a fever. There is probably only one cause for both perceived phenomena, and you will find it in the “germ theory� of disease.
In this case the “pop psychology� includes cat scans, brain scans, autopsies and surveys of self-defined liberals and conservatives.

You seem to be talking about behavorial differences between conservatives and liberals, ie: at a party a conservative person would generally be sulking in a corner talking to only one person while a liberal person would be up on a table drinking and dancing. This isn't relevant to the topic though.

I am talking about the differences underlying the differing behaviors. “Belief� after all is behavior.

A world view is determined by the electrochemistry and genetic configuration of the brain. For instance if you are tone-deaf you can't really hear music. If you are color-blind you can't really appreciate a rainbow. And if you are a conservative, you can't really understand nuance, you can't see that every good thing brings its own evil. My own guess is that this may be an epigenetic effect. You quoted to the effect that a conservative is a liberal who has been mugged. And there is much truth in that. And many conservatives were mugged when they were so young they don't even remember it. I suspect, in fact, that all conservatives were mugged and it left them permanently impaired. In fact since there is evidence that epigenetic effects may be inherited, it may even be their parents who got mugged.

First of all, I never said that.

Sorry, that was Olavisjo. I plead guilty to improper editing.

Second of all, liberalism and conservativism are ideological worldviews. Have you ever noticed that people can volutnarily change their views from liberal to conservative, or from conservative to liberal?

Actually I haven't noticed that. The late Christopher Hitchens (God bless him!) said on several occasions that he had to believe in free will. I, however, choose not to.

Can tone deaf people and color blind people voluntarily chose to stop being tone deaf and color blind? Like I said, you're presenting arguments and ideas that are not reelated to the topic.

You seem to have missed part of what I wrote: “For instance if you are tone-deaf you can't really hear music. If you are color-blind you can't really appreciate a rainbow. And if you are a conservative, you can't really understand nuance, you can't see that every good thing brings its own evil. “ Conservative seem to lack the ability to perceive nuance. Conservatives tend to see absolutes, and have great trouble dealing with moral complexity.

The 'worldview?' A person's worldview encompasses their personal opinions, beliefs, convictions, etc. There is nothing about a person's world that is inherited. On the otherhand, a person's intelligence is determined through a mixture of genetic and environmental factors.

Whether a person is liberal or conservative is not a matter of intelligence. Conservatives operate out of the amygdala. They decide and only then rationalize their decisions. Thus, they decide things quickly, which is a plus. But their conscious minds enter only after the decision has been made. Liberals sometimes allow their anterior cingulate cortex into the loop and so occasionally change the decision before they complete the act. And again, sometimes liberals don't seem to be able to make a decision at all. It has been said that conservatives can never admit to losing an argument, and liberals make a habit of losing arguments with themselves.

Yes, we're talking past eachother. I am not trying to explain the psychological and behavorial differences between conservatives and liberals. I am trying to explain why conservatives and liberals believe the things they do. Why are the majority of conservatives christian? Why are many liberals atheists? Etc. Nothing you've written so far even comes close to explaining this anomaly.

There is nothing “anomalous� about the phenomenon. The neurological differences between liberals and conservatives are reflected in their behaviors and worldviews.

Oh come on! You will never take seriously anyone who disagrees with you. Let us go to your two cited books, although Lakoff seems to be a derived work, which is to say, not founded in neurobiology. Bring up point by point where they disagree with me. At that point I will provide pertinent citations. I am not going to list three or four pages of citations, unless it is really necessary. People get paid for that kind of work.
I haven't read either book, but a quick perusal of the tables of contents shows no hint that they concern themselves at all with neuroscience. They compare ideas but do not address the questions of why people have ideas.

None of the books, other than Stephen Pinker perhaps, is rooted in neurobiology. Additionally, Stephen Pinker completely endorses Thomas Sowell's book which is the explanation I subscribe to. The books and authors I cite are not approaching this issue from a neurobiological standpoint like you are. They are using political, sociological and economic analysis to explain the origin and causation of opinions and beliefs.

OK. Save me some time. Just how does economic and sociological analysis explain the origins of these beliefs. After all, we experience the same society, the same economy. Whence, then, the differences?

I will offer citations, but I would suggest first that you sit through Robert Sapolsky's lectures on the Biology of Human Behavior, given at Stanford University. They are available on line for free.
Or we could just have you bring up how Lakoff and Sowell disagree with me and we could go from there. But again, from the reviews and a quick scan of the contents, it does not appear that either book addresses the neurological differences between liberals and conservatives. Charles Murray is a “Political Scientist�. I give those folks as much credence as I do “Theologians�. Pinker I may get around to reading. (So many books, so little time!) Thanks for pointing him out.

I have no interest in neurobiology, and now that I know where you're coming from I have no interest in seeing you're sources. Like I said, we're not on the same page. We're talking past eachother. You bringing up irrelevant issues regarding neurobiology and psychology while I'm bringing up politics, economics, and sociology to address the topic.

Politics, economics, and sociology are emergent properties. The underlying cause of these properties is the neurobiology of the human brain.

I will repeat: Conservatives tend to make their decisions first and then rationalize them.

How does this explain why conservatives are fundamentalist christians, pro life, against gay marriage, pro economic freedom, opposed to drugs, etc. Sorry, but everything you're writing so far is irrelevant.

Conservatives like simple answers. Religious fundamentalism provides simple answers, and if the answers are nonsensical or contradictory, well, “God works in mysterious ways.� Christians are pro-life, but when does life become “human�? Sperm and egg are human cells, and they are undoubtedly alive, but few would maintain, I think that, gametes are human beings. So the conservative makes a rule, hard and fast, that “human life begins at conception�. One simple rule. No uncomfortable thought is necessary. Gay marriage they oppose, I think, because gay men are being disobedient. They aren't following the rules. “Economic freedom� just means they want to keep their stuff. Of course Jesus, their nominal king, said to give away everything, but that isn't preached from the pulpit very ofte,so it can't be important. Drug users are disobeying authority. 'Nuf said.

How do I know that you are a conservative? Because when you became angry with me, you accused me of being a liberal. Actually, I am a radical.

First, I never got angry at you. I don't get angry at random people over the internet. Second, I never accused you of being a liberal.

Sorry, that was Olavisjo again.

Third, I consider myself a radical (someone who looks to the root of the problem) in many ways as well.

The problem, if it is a problem, is “rooted� in the human brain and how it functions. Until we understand that, until we deal with that, we are just trying to do away with the symptoms instead of treating the underlying causes. Note that conservatism has a positive function. Liberalism is necessary if society is to change to meet a changing environment. Conservatism is necessary to provide stability. We can't change everything at once. That would lead to a total societal breakdown.

Wise social policy would dictate that neither liberalism or conservatism be allowed a total triumph or a total defeat.

That said: We are presently faced with numerous problems that we have neglected for far too long because of the economic dominance of conservative forces in our society. We have overpopulation, climate change, depletion of fossil fuels, and unsustainable economic practices. Conservatives will not lead, follow or get out of the way. They want things to stay the same, but the ever more undeniable reality is that massive change is coming, one way or another.

Non-violent measures have been met with the intransigence of those who have benefited most from the present environmentally, economically, and socially destructive policies. I think that what is coming is going to be very bad indeed.

[Danmark]

And I'd suggest Mooney and more importantly the research he relied on for The Republican Brain, as well as a lot of other links to research previously published on this subforum. These are only generalizations of course.

I was only presenting books by serious, legitimate, qualified authors. From what I've read, Chris Mooney is not serious, legitimate or qualified. To the contrary, he doesn't seem to have a doctorate, he is a liberal polemic and he does not do original academic research like Sowell, Lakoff, Murray, Caplan and Pinker do. Chris Mooney is the equivalent of an Ann Coulter or a Laura Ingraham. But hey, at least Coulter and Ingraham have law degrees. Let me recommend one more book in light of Danmark's suggestion:

Demonic: How the Liberal Mob is Endangering America, Ann Coulter

I think it is unfair to compare Mooney to Coulter. She is in a class of her own.
At any rate there was a reason I suggested what was more important than what Mooney wrote, was the research he relied upon. When I read his book, I frequently reviewed the notes and references he made. He was careful not to overstate the case, and to point out the valuable aspects of the 'Republican brain' or conservative mindset. My general impression of his book was that it showed the importance both 'sides' bring to society. I confess I have never read any book by Coulter. Based purely on what I have heard her say in popular media, I would never read anything by her, and presume her books are as one sided as her personal appearances suggest. Plus, just like Michelle Bachmann, I can't get past that 'crazy' look in her eyes.

At any rate, the discussion should revolve around the underlying research, not some journalist's assessment.

As for having a degree in law, even tho' I have one myself, I don't make much of that. Tho' I have great respect for both the intellect and integrity of many lawyers I have worked with and opposed professionally, I have met WAY too many that are at best, mediocre in terms of general knowledge and insight.

[jamesyaqub]

"White evangelical Protestants are roughly five times more likely to agree with the Tea Party movement than to disagree with it...."
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/02/2 ... filiation/
http://www.pewforum.org/2011/02/23/tea- ... -religion/

Why?
Why should a religion based on the teachings of Jesus Christ be so conservative politically and economically? Why should the 'soldiers of Christ' be so pro big business and be lackey's for the 1% of Americans that own 40 or 50% of the Country's wealth? Why are they so hostile to social programs designed to help the poor and provide basic health coverage?

The reason is simple. The conservative and the fundamentalist Christian minds both emphasize obedience to simplistic beliefs over critical thinking. This is entirely opposed to the liberal minds which knows no boundaries.

There are thousands of liberal arts colleges in America but not a single conservative arts one. Need we wonder why?

That's it kids. No more need be said.